Scott retweeted
Adding a drug to our food supply crosses a red line that must never be crossed.
Replying to @paulfrewDUP
@paulfrewDUP @JimShannonMP @carlalockhart @JimAllister @ClaireHanna @RupertLowe10 @YvetteCooperMP @RobbieButlerMLA @ClareCraigPath
THIS IS TOTALLY UNETHICAL AND UNACCEPTABLE, Nuremberg Code, ethical principles. Its central rule is voluntary, informed consent is essential.
Scott retweeted
The OFFICIAL 'Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026' has been published and it is worse than you think.
Scott retweeted
Dear Aussies,
This is called journalism. It is not the same as the government-funded propaganda spewed from our handful of news media outlets.
Most have forgotten, especially since 2020, that it means unearthing facts, especially about insane politicians destroying the country.
Wow, wow, wow. I just left the National Press Club where Minister of Communications @AnikaWells spoke. She repeatedly and brazenly lied about the fake accounts, claiming they were only for enforcement, even though the legislation says in black and white that the eSafety Commissioner can use them in unlimited ways for "educational" and "promotional" purposes.
One big moment came when a Politico reporter got up and said something about how mean people like @PaulineHansonOz were to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant. Seriously. A supposed reporter was white-knighting for a government official during the official Q&A. The same reporter had come up to me before Wells' speech and asked if I had criticized Inman-Grant. Who needs government censors when you have Politico?
After he asked his question, Wells showed the most emotion, describing online criticism of Inman-Grant as "abuse." She also talked about her own staff's supposed suffering. I kid you not. The mask dropped, and you could see what really upset her: people — including a sitting Senator — criticizing government officials.
After gaslighting the audience about fake accounts, Wells repeatedly insisted the government wasn't trying to censor content. She said this after filling her speech with examples of content she claimed harmed people. You couldn't make it up.
This legislation is the culmination of decades of progressives equating words with physical violence. Wells cynically compared her legislation to prevent psychological "harm" to various laws that protect people from physical harm, like seat belt laws.
BTW, Wells never said what content it was that she thought caused eating disorders. Pictures of skinny women? Dietary advice? Who knows. Nobody asked.
Another important moment came when Wells explicitly said Australia would be pursuing censorship alongside other nations, including the UK, France, and Spain—all countries where governments risk losing power to populists.
I spoke with Julie Inman-Grant before the speech began and asked about the fake accounts. She insisted they were there just for enforcement, and when I asked why the law allowed them to be used for government propaganda, she said she might write an "enforcement memo," which, of course, would have no impact on the legislation.
After her speech, I went up to Wells and asked if she was seriously saying the legislation didn't allow the government to use fake accounts for government propaganda. She refused to answer. A man who said he was from the National Press Club stepped in front of me and said I could interview her afterward. But that wasn't possible because they rushed her out the back to avoid any difficult questions.
So there you have it. The pettiest people in Australia are seeking to silence citizens and their political opponents in the name of protecting children. These deeply intolerant and cynical people want to control what you can see and say online. And they're doing it with most of the media's support. Australia has reached a new low in its rapid descent into dogmatism, intolerance, and censorship.
Scott retweeted
Every word of this. As someone for whom the pandemic response marked a watershed moment not only in British politics but in my own political thinking – an event so seismic, carried out with such cavalier disregard for ethics, the British public and the rule of law, and with consequences so profound and long-lasting that to move on from it without attempting an honest assessment of where we went wrong and how to ensure the same mistakes cannot be repeated – the suggestion that I should cede a potential vote for Restore (or for that matter any other party) for a party which has elected to recruit one of the key architects of that response, is frankly pretty offensive.
Some people say Restore Britain should disband because we are “splitting the vote” or because Reform is currently polling higher.
My answer to them is this:
No political party owns the votes of the British people.
Restore Britain exists because there are a great many people who believe Britain needs something different to what any of the other parties offer. There are a great many of them who are uncomfortable with Reform UK’s leadership, the fire from the hip and fag packet policies, the weak statements made on immigration and Islamification, and the performative, celebrity politics its leaders like project.
Those people are looking for statesmanship, strategic clarity and consistency, sincerity, credibility, depth, detail, frank talking and moral courage.
Restore’s supporters are entitled to that choice, just as Reform, Conservative, Labour and Green voters are entitled to theirs.
Also, contrary to the often posed argument, polling numbers do not determine who will win a general election 3 years away, nor do they give any political party ownership of the political field.
Polls and by-election results are snapshots. They change, both up and down, and they do not determine what voters should believe or which political choices should be available to them.
If Reform wants the support of voters, it should earn it, not demand another party stands aside and gives it a free pass.
Rupert Lowe has already publicly offered to put personalities and past disagreements aside and explore cooperation in the national interest. Reform UK has rejected the offer.
That door remains open.
But, for the reasons I’ve stated, cooperation does not mean one party being expected to disband so that another can inherit its voters simply because it currently polls higher.
Nor can it be assumed that every Restore supporter would automatically vote Reform if Restore did not exist. That cannot be assumed more than it can be assumed all Reform voters would vote for Restore if Reform collapsed. Yes, it’s a convenient argument for Reform’s leadership and supporters to make, but they know well how quickly things can change. And, in their hearts they know it’s a political argument that has no evidential basis and fails to take account of the differences I’ve mentioned. If Restore members wanted to support Reform they already would. But they don’t. Indeed, many have moved the other way - from Reform to Restore.
If those who genuinely want political cooperation want to talk seriously about it, then talk.
Until then, Restore Britain will continue to make its case to the British people, and the British people will decide.
Scott retweeted
A group of astronomers claim they have evidence for UFOs on the moon. Their evidence is so bad I suspect they are just trolling.
Scott retweeted
🚨
I have a parliamentary petition for 'Adult Crime - Adult Time.'
In NSW a child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence ... and I'm fine with that.
But a child aged 10 to 13 is presumed incapable of crime. Police and prosecutors must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the child knew the act was seriously wrong, not merely naughty.
That hurdle is now so high serious offending by young teenagers is routinely walked away from. It is an incentive to enter into the world of crime at a young age.
Every crime has its unique circumstances. The Libertarian Party is therefore in favour of judges using their discretion and in some cases that discretion will find, 'this individual is dangerous and belongs in a jail for a period.'
Enough signatures will trigger a debate in the parliament ... which will force the other parties to look into this and form a position.
The background to the petition is in the video and the petition link is in the comments. It closes on 20 October 2026.
Thank you to @StuarBonds for originally suggesting this petition and for helping promote it.
@LibertariansNSW
Scott retweeted
I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by a woman who doesn't even know what a woman is and used her power to erase women's rights by allowing men in women's only spaces in sport, bathrooms and prisons.
More leftist garbage from @abcnews funded by all of us 🤮
Scott retweeted
The official petition to end the mandatory fortification of white flour with folic acid has just hit 100k.
Great news.
It helps me take the fight to the establishment in Parliament.
Let’s end it.
Scott retweeted
Modern man conflates license with liberty, and in his pursuit for unrestrained pleasure, destroys both himself and his society.
Scott retweeted
Britain's biggest left-wing publisher rejected Orwell for telling the truth about Stalin.
In 1937 he refused Homage to Catalonia, Orwell's eyewitness account of Communists jailing and killing their own allies in Barcelona. 🧵
Scott retweeted
Replying to @Ausbobsmit
Australia is following Britain and France towards civil war. fredpawle.substack.com/p/the…
🤖 Made with AI
Scott retweeted
If there is any politician that deserves to be re-elected in the mess that has been the past eight years of failed politics from both sides of the aisle in Victoria, it's David.
His voting record is largely beyond reproach.
He has held the line on more freedom, and less taxes!
Scott retweeted
The Greens political party has a think tank called The Green Institute. Maybe it should be known as an 'unthinking tank' as it has proposed nationalising supermarkets and making them a government department.
The Greens sister party in Russia, the Communist Party tried this for 70 years. When Soviet leader Boris Yeltsin visited the US on an official delegation in the 1980s, he made an unplanned visit to a regular supermarket ... and was stunned by how much supply and choice there was at such low cost.
An aide to Yeltsin said of this moment that, 'the last vestige of Bolshevism collapsed inside him.'
abc.net.au/news/2026-10-06/g…
Scott retweeted
Testing: Communism sucks.
There are definitely bot armies operating on Twitter.
Say the word 'communism' and you get random, small follower accounts, based in Australia, DEFENDING communism.
If the eSafety Commissioner has a role, it should be to find the source of these commie bot farms infiltrating our society and trying to overwhelm and demoralise anyone who defends Australian culture.
But as always, the government only every wants to silence real citizens who criticise the government.
Never the thousands of bots acting to PROTECT the government and its radical commie ideology.
Scott retweeted
John Cleese has been reported to Prevent, the government’s counter-terrorism watchdog.
My thoughts here…
andrewdoyle.org/p/john-clees…
Scott retweeted
🏛 Cicero Would Have Loved Social Media
Just because social media as we know it wasn’t around in Cicero’s day, we can’t be fooled into thinking that they were not also subject to “shadow banning.”
His letters often refer to the dangers involved in having his messages read or even being delivered for fear of retribution, particularly during the heightened times of civil war when the power struggles between Caesar and Pompey were being played out.
In a letter to his friend, Cassius, he writes that his return letter would be much longer if it were not for the haste at hand in dispatching it:
‘…longer, anyhow, if I had had any bavardage to hand, since writing au sérieux is hardly possible without risk. Is joking possible then, you will ask. Well, it certainly isn’t very easy, but we have no other means of diversion from our troubles.’
There we have it: he has no “bavardage” - chatter; and since writing anything “serious” only leads to the threat of persecution, he makes light of the real risk involved during such times of surveillance under fire. Oh, how eerily familiar!






























